From:
THE MYSTERIES OF THE KABBALAH AND FREEMASONRY
(2be1ask1.com) -- by [Freemason] Bro. Raymond L. Schwartz --
Masonic scholars such as Alex Horne and Harry Carr, in previous studies have demonstated a relationship between the ancient Hebrew religion and its attendant symbols and certain aspects of Freemasonry.
A major motif in Freemasonry is the building of King Solomon's Temple, the search for light, and the lost word of a Master Mason. The temple and the ability of the high priest to pronounce the name of God properly while in the Holy of Holies comprised much of the substantive nature of the Jewish High Holy days of worship in ancient times. The activities of the high priest within the Sanctum Sanctorum is particularly featured in the Royal Arch Degree...
The Kabbaiists believe that the transmission of the name of God from master to pupil is part of the rites of initiation. The newly-raised brother also receives a word in a certain manner, which is never used in normal conversation. Masonically, the ability of a freemason to recite the word and reproduce it as it was given to him are the identifying characteristics of a Master Mason.
The Kabbalists study Sefer Yetshirah, or the Book of Creation. Again, the information in this book could only be communicated by the master to his disciple by word of mouth, study may explain the origin of the masonic practice of the "Mouth to ear" instruction.
All of the masonic oaths or obligaitons impose a requirement that the freemason should hold the work of Freemasonry to be inviolate. Furthermore, the act of creation of the world is particularly pronounced in the first degree of Freemasonry...
The Hebrew alphabet has 32 letters, which also serve as numbers. Some Kabbalists manipulate words and numbers for explaining much about the universe and the works of God. The number 32 denotes the number of degrees in the Scottish Rite. The Hebrew letters Yod, Heh, and Vav are an important symbol in the Royal Arch degree. Hebraically, these letters form the name of God and this is also a magnificent centerpiece of the Royal Arch degree. There is no question that the Kabbalistic En-Sof and the masonic manipulation of these letters are conceptually related.
The Kabbalists argue that there are 32 paths of widsom, which lead to knowledge about God. It is interesting to note that the Babylonia version of the Talmud has 32 tractates. Again, the number 32 is a significant feature in both the Kabbalah and Freemasonry.
Charles Ponce describes a magic circle that King Solomon created so as to protect himself from evil svirits. Within this circle one finds the Greek letter, Tau, which has been masonically represented as a combination the words "Temple, Hirosalmis" (Templum Hierosolymae or Temple of Jerusalem). Furthermore, the points of the compass in the circle correspond directly with the officers' places in the masonic lodge.
The Kabbalists contend that the soul is comprised of three levels. The Nefresh deals with all of the instincts and bodily desires. The Ruah concerns itself with morality and ethical conduct. The Neshama is the highest level of the soul and is related to the divine spirit of man. These gradations of the soul can be compared to the first three degress of Freemasonry.
The first degree relates to youth and so the Nefresh or bodily desires are paramount. The second degree in Freemasonry is identified as a freemason coming to full maturity, so that ethical conduct and control over one's desires is accentuated. The third degree represents old age and the fullness of maturity, which is also represented by the highest level of the soul, the Neshama, or in the case of Freemasonry, the Master Mason. Death awaits the Master Mason, but his soul is raised to divine heights. The Kabbalists warn us that reaching the level of the Neshama was only awarded to some and not guaranteed to all. Therefore, as is true with the third degree in Freemasonry, the level of Master Mason is only reached when a man proves himself worthy of that esteemed title...MORE...LINK
-----
Comment on Freemasonry from BibleBeleivers.org:
The cult of liberty has always been a favorite of the Freemasons. The liberty they seek is not the legitimate and due liberty from the burdensome constraints of socialistic governments, which a citizen may rightfully desire, but rather freedom from the authority of God, the "freedom" of the devil, the liberty of perdition, as Saint Augustine called it. They desire not the liberty of the sons of God, but the "liberty" which makes us slaves to sin.
Related:
List of links documeting Kabbalah and Talmud's role in vicous war against Chrisitanity
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Fake "humanist" Diaspora Jewry is essential to enabling Zionists through misdirection, and by preventing their isolation as Judeofascists they are
From:
Calling Out the Tribalists
(CounterPunch) -- by KATHLEEN CHRISTISON --
Gilad Atzmon captures the essence of his book, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics, on the first page of his foreword. The book is about the conundrums of Jewish identity—what is it; why is it special, if it is in fact special; why do the rest of us so often celebrate it; what does the fixation on it mean for Israel and for its neighbors? He wastes no time getting to the core of the issue—which is the politics these identity issues create. On page 1, he cites his own very rightwing grandfather, who he says knew perfectly well that “tribalism can never live in peace with humanism and universalism.” His grandfather was an unapologetic tribal Jewish nationalist, as were virtually all of the early Zionists in Israel, and none of them had any truck with humanism or universalist notions of coexistence with Arabs or Jewish-Palestinian equality in Palestine.
...Noting that early Zionism rejected the Diaspora and tried to gather the exiles into Israel, he says that with the rise of the right since 1967 and the glorification of the Israeli settler who is reclaiming “Greater Israel,” there has been a bonding between Eretz Yisrael, the so-called whole land of Israel, and the Diaspora that has united most of world Jewry behind Zionism and has had the effect of uniting Jews against the world, setting them “apart from their surrounding social reality.” Jews have again become members of a separate tribe.
It is the secular Jewish Zionists who profess universalist values while existing in solidarity with the Jewish tribe—who seem to straddle the second and third categories but give far too much primacy to their Jewishness to fit easily into the category of “ordinary human being”—who particularly irk Atzmon. It is these people, Atzmon believes, who by continuing to identify primarily as Jews, even when professing to be anti-Zionist, actually enable worldwide Zionism to maintain its power and its role as the voice of world Jewry. They actually embody, he contends, a continuum between hardcore rightwing Zionism and Jewish anti-Zionism, ultimately totally undermining the impact and significance of their anti-Zionism.
To illustrate his case, he cites the example of a Jewish couple in London profiled in a local Jewish paper, who are described as socialists who belong to no synagogue, do not believe in God, and are “antagonistic towards Zionism.” Yet they “feel passionately” about Jewish history, have strong Jewish connections in their social lives, helped form a specifically Jewish socialist organization, love Hebrew and Yiddish culture, hold a Seder at Passover, and have circumcised and bar mitzvahed their sons. They “want to remain Jewish,” according to the article, and “prove that there is a way of being Jewish that doesn’t involve saying prayers to a God you don’t believe in.” They clearly want acceptance inside the Jewish community, whose preservation is vitally important to them; they are concerned to prevent Jewish assimilation. (This couple identifies their Jewishness as ethnic. Atzmon—along with Israeli historian Shlomo Sand whose 2009 book The Invention of the Jewish People argued that Jews are not a unique nation, only a religion—challenge the existence of a Jewish ethnicity, on strong historical and evidentiary grounds.)
Atzmon’s point is that, whether the identification is secular and ethnic or religious, the need to identify primarily as Jewish is tribal and anti-universalist and essentially negates any pretense of anti-Zionism. “Why don’t they just ‘get on’ with their ‘socialist agenda’ and join the human family as ordinary people?” he wonders. Many people around the world have left their faith and ceased believing in God, but they exist in multi-cultural, multi-faith societies and do not insist on being identified first as Catholics, Hindus, or Muslims or on socializing primarily with their own co-religionists or on forming organizations exclusive to their ethnicity or religious preference. His objection is to Jews who profess to be anti-Zionist but form what he calls “ethnocentric, separatist, peace-loving” organizations of Jews: Jews for Peace, Jews for Justice in Palestine, “Jews for this and Jews for that.” This kind of “exclusive, ethnocentric Jewish discourse” is not something one sees from Germans or Aryans or Caucasians, he points out wryly.
Whether or not they realize that they are actually pushing Zionism, Atzmon says, they ultimately carry out a Zionist agenda by being so tribally focused. The result continues to be—as Atzmon himself and many other non-tribal anti-Zionists have sadly discovered—that those who criticize Zionism for its fundamental objectives and for what it has done to the Palestinian nation are frequently vilified as anti-Semitic. Solidarity with Jews tends to create—even in Jewish anti-Zionists, whom he calls “Jewish ethnic campaigners”—solidarity against anyone identified, however baselessly, as an enemy of the Jews. In this loose, emotional world of tribal loyalty, because Israel is “the Jewish state,” critics of Zionism can easily be made out to be “enemies of the Jewish people.”...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Chris Moore comments:
Similar to certain communist sects, and to Fabian socialists, Jewry operates on a far more subtle and insidious level than, say the Nazis, who were more honest and up front about their intentions.
The Diaspora Zionists slowly ingratiate, insinuate, infiltrate and subvert, using these fake "liberal" and "humanist" Jews as "proof" that they're not the Judeofascist depiction of Israelis that sometimes slips through mainstream media or more regularly now reaches the public eye via the Internet.
"No, you can trust us," these "humanist" Jewish frauds say. "Why, just look at how liberal, progressive, and intellectual Noam Chomsky is. That's the real face of Jewry."
Of course, the real face of Jewry, the one that is the inevitable manifestation of Jewish ethno-ideological-religious doctrine and Jewish culture, is on naked display in Israel, and these liberal Jews are just red-herrings and misdirection used to throw humanity off of the Judeofascist scent.
And don't believe for one second that these fake "liberal" and "humanist" Jews don't know exactly how racist the culture they cling to is, and that its wealthy Zionist network will eventually reward them handsomely for their treachery, if it hasn't already.
Truly, the only Jew that can be trusted is one who is willing to go to war against organized Jewry and its collaborators on behalf of humanity.
And guess what...the same test of trustworthiness and value to humanity applies to Gentiles, as well!
Calling Out the Tribalists
(CounterPunch) -- by KATHLEEN CHRISTISON --
Gilad Atzmon captures the essence of his book, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics, on the first page of his foreword. The book is about the conundrums of Jewish identity—what is it; why is it special, if it is in fact special; why do the rest of us so often celebrate it; what does the fixation on it mean for Israel and for its neighbors? He wastes no time getting to the core of the issue—which is the politics these identity issues create. On page 1, he cites his own very rightwing grandfather, who he says knew perfectly well that “tribalism can never live in peace with humanism and universalism.” His grandfather was an unapologetic tribal Jewish nationalist, as were virtually all of the early Zionists in Israel, and none of them had any truck with humanism or universalist notions of coexistence with Arabs or Jewish-Palestinian equality in Palestine.
...Noting that early Zionism rejected the Diaspora and tried to gather the exiles into Israel, he says that with the rise of the right since 1967 and the glorification of the Israeli settler who is reclaiming “Greater Israel,” there has been a bonding between Eretz Yisrael, the so-called whole land of Israel, and the Diaspora that has united most of world Jewry behind Zionism and has had the effect of uniting Jews against the world, setting them “apart from their surrounding social reality.” Jews have again become members of a separate tribe.
It is the secular Jewish Zionists who profess universalist values while existing in solidarity with the Jewish tribe—who seem to straddle the second and third categories but give far too much primacy to their Jewishness to fit easily into the category of “ordinary human being”—who particularly irk Atzmon. It is these people, Atzmon believes, who by continuing to identify primarily as Jews, even when professing to be anti-Zionist, actually enable worldwide Zionism to maintain its power and its role as the voice of world Jewry. They actually embody, he contends, a continuum between hardcore rightwing Zionism and Jewish anti-Zionism, ultimately totally undermining the impact and significance of their anti-Zionism.
To illustrate his case, he cites the example of a Jewish couple in London profiled in a local Jewish paper, who are described as socialists who belong to no synagogue, do not believe in God, and are “antagonistic towards Zionism.” Yet they “feel passionately” about Jewish history, have strong Jewish connections in their social lives, helped form a specifically Jewish socialist organization, love Hebrew and Yiddish culture, hold a Seder at Passover, and have circumcised and bar mitzvahed their sons. They “want to remain Jewish,” according to the article, and “prove that there is a way of being Jewish that doesn’t involve saying prayers to a God you don’t believe in.” They clearly want acceptance inside the Jewish community, whose preservation is vitally important to them; they are concerned to prevent Jewish assimilation. (This couple identifies their Jewishness as ethnic. Atzmon—along with Israeli historian Shlomo Sand whose 2009 book The Invention of the Jewish People argued that Jews are not a unique nation, only a religion—challenge the existence of a Jewish ethnicity, on strong historical and evidentiary grounds.)
Atzmon’s point is that, whether the identification is secular and ethnic or religious, the need to identify primarily as Jewish is tribal and anti-universalist and essentially negates any pretense of anti-Zionism. “Why don’t they just ‘get on’ with their ‘socialist agenda’ and join the human family as ordinary people?” he wonders. Many people around the world have left their faith and ceased believing in God, but they exist in multi-cultural, multi-faith societies and do not insist on being identified first as Catholics, Hindus, or Muslims or on socializing primarily with their own co-religionists or on forming organizations exclusive to their ethnicity or religious preference. His objection is to Jews who profess to be anti-Zionist but form what he calls “ethnocentric, separatist, peace-loving” organizations of Jews: Jews for Peace, Jews for Justice in Palestine, “Jews for this and Jews for that.” This kind of “exclusive, ethnocentric Jewish discourse” is not something one sees from Germans or Aryans or Caucasians, he points out wryly.
Whether or not they realize that they are actually pushing Zionism, Atzmon says, they ultimately carry out a Zionist agenda by being so tribally focused. The result continues to be—as Atzmon himself and many other non-tribal anti-Zionists have sadly discovered—that those who criticize Zionism for its fundamental objectives and for what it has done to the Palestinian nation are frequently vilified as anti-Semitic. Solidarity with Jews tends to create—even in Jewish anti-Zionists, whom he calls “Jewish ethnic campaigners”—solidarity against anyone identified, however baselessly, as an enemy of the Jews. In this loose, emotional world of tribal loyalty, because Israel is “the Jewish state,” critics of Zionism can easily be made out to be “enemies of the Jewish people.”...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Chris Moore comments:
Similar to certain communist sects, and to Fabian socialists, Jewry operates on a far more subtle and insidious level than, say the Nazis, who were more honest and up front about their intentions.
The Diaspora Zionists slowly ingratiate, insinuate, infiltrate and subvert, using these fake "liberal" and "humanist" Jews as "proof" that they're not the Judeofascist depiction of Israelis that sometimes slips through mainstream media or more regularly now reaches the public eye via the Internet.
"No, you can trust us," these "humanist" Jewish frauds say. "Why, just look at how liberal, progressive, and intellectual Noam Chomsky is. That's the real face of Jewry."
Of course, the real face of Jewry, the one that is the inevitable manifestation of Jewish ethno-ideological-religious doctrine and Jewish culture, is on naked display in Israel, and these liberal Jews are just red-herrings and misdirection used to throw humanity off of the Judeofascist scent.
And don't believe for one second that these fake "liberal" and "humanist" Jews don't know exactly how racist the culture they cling to is, and that its wealthy Zionist network will eventually reward them handsomely for their treachery, if it hasn't already.
Truly, the only Jew that can be trusted is one who is willing to go to war against organized Jewry and its collaborators on behalf of humanity.
And guess what...the same test of trustworthiness and value to humanity applies to Gentiles, as well!
Have Jews been trained to project Jewry's own supremacist attitudes and agenda onto non-Jews, hence blaming others for what Jewry itself is guilty?
From:
Supremacism Revisited
(Veterans Today) -- by Gilad Atzmon --
A few days ago I compared two critiques of my new book ‘The Wandering Who”. One was by rabid Zionist Mark Gardner and the other by American academic Kevin MacDonald. I called my piece ‘Supremacists on The Wandering Who’.
In my article I labeled Gardner as a ‘Jewish Supremacist’ and MacDonald as a ‘White Supremacist’. However, since the publication of my column it has been pointed out by a few readers that I may have been insufficiently careful in the way I attributed supremacism to Kevin MacDonald.
The definition of supremacism is actually pretty straightforward. It is the belief that a particular race, species, ethnic group, religion, gender, sexual orientation, belief system or culture is superior to others, and thus entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.
What is clear beyond any doubt is that such a definition fits Zionist ideology, discourse or practice like a glove. Zionism is driven by the belief that Jewish people are entitled to dominate, control and rule their supposed ‘promised land’ at the expense of its indigenous population i.e. the Palestinians. But is this only true of Zionism? Is not any Jewish ‘progressive’ discourse, driven by tribal and racial inclinations towards segregation and determined to enforce on others how their struggle must be conducted, is not this also fundamentally supremacist?
My point is actually very simple and, also it seems, devastating. I believe that every single Jewish political discourse is chauvinist to the bone and is either already supremacist or on the verge of becoming supremacist.
But what about Kevin MacDonald? Is he a White Supremacist? Well, now I‘m not so sure. He’s certainly concerned with his white heritage and, like many Jews, he is also concerned with his genetic pool. MacDonald’s world view is clearly shaped by biological determinism and this is something I am very uncomfortable with. Yet, does he insist upon privilege? Does he seek to ‘dominate’, ‘control’ or ‘rule’ other non-white people? I’m not so sure, but I’m certainly going to look into it and it may take some time. But I will come with an answer.
Projection
I also asked myself, why did I label MacDonald as a White Supremacist without really elaborating on the topic or explaining myself? My answer is slightly embarrassing. For quite a while, I’ve seen the ‘White Supremacist’ tag attached to MacDonald and to so many other people, and at some point I must have let my guard down and allowed this highly charged terminology to infiltrate my vocabulary. I didn’t even notice the glaring fact that those who have bombarded us with this inflammatory label are themselves the ultimate supremacists – ADL, Zionists and even some Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists.
It’s now clear to me why Jewish ethnic leaders toss around the ‘White Supremacist’ label. It is there to divert attention from the true depth of their own Jewish Supremacism, an ideological tendency deeply embedded in every form of Jewish identity politics. For every Jewish political collective is a ‘Jews only’ exclusive club concerned primarily with Jewish particular interests.
It is more than likely that what we have here is a clear case of projection.
Projection is basically a psychological defense mechanism whereby one ‘projects’ one’s own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else. It seems likely that many amongst those who attribute supremacism to others are themselves supremacists. I will obviously have to look into my own psyche and find out why, on this occasion, I tossed around the supremacist tag. I guess that my escape from Jewishness is not yet complete and from time to time I follow my tribal instinct. In retrospect, this is, indeed, a matter for regret...MORE...LINK
-----------------------
Chris Moore comments:
It's no secret that organized Jewry hates Gentiles per its racist ethno-religious doctrine, and acts like it. This is the primary reason Jewry has been historically persecuted, despite its self-serving "victim" narratives that Jewry's own behavior has nothing to do with its persecution.
How many obnoxious, hateful individuals that go around spitting on and exploiting people and then consequently get regularly beat up can be described as "persecuted"?
Same story with organized Jewry.
True, there's a difference between individual Jews and organized Jewry, yet Zionists insist on conflating the two, and pretend to be unaware that Jewish doctrine is innately racist.
Most people have no problem with individual Jews who aren't part of the Zionist racket and its racist doctrine that comprises organized Jewry (which might be defined as either a loose or cohesive grouping of Jews working openly or in secret to advance, implement and impose their authority and/or Jewish supremacist agenda upon non-Jews, and/or steal from non-Jews by means of conspiracy, bullying, corruption, or outright theft).
Were the famous Protocols of the Elders of Zion that describe elements of the Judeofascist method and agenda written or inspired by Jewry, by renegade Jews, or merely by someone intimately familiar with Jewry's attitudes and modus-operandi as a means of "outing" the Judeofascist core for all the world to see?
Either way, we now know Hitler and Nazism mirrored the Protocols to some extent in their war against communism/Jewish Bolshevism, but it must be remembered that Jewry started the paradigm in the first place millenia ago, and has been practicing it ever since, with the Jewish Bolsheviks merely being a 20th century version of the ancient Jewish supremacist thesis to which the Nazis became the antithesis.
Live by the racist sword, die by the racist sword...that's the REAL story of organized Jewry, and always has been.
Supremacism Revisited
(Veterans Today) -- by Gilad Atzmon --
A few days ago I compared two critiques of my new book ‘The Wandering Who”. One was by rabid Zionist Mark Gardner and the other by American academic Kevin MacDonald. I called my piece ‘Supremacists on The Wandering Who’.
In my article I labeled Gardner as a ‘Jewish Supremacist’ and MacDonald as a ‘White Supremacist’. However, since the publication of my column it has been pointed out by a few readers that I may have been insufficiently careful in the way I attributed supremacism to Kevin MacDonald.
The definition of supremacism is actually pretty straightforward. It is the belief that a particular race, species, ethnic group, religion, gender, sexual orientation, belief system or culture is superior to others, and thus entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.
What is clear beyond any doubt is that such a definition fits Zionist ideology, discourse or practice like a glove. Zionism is driven by the belief that Jewish people are entitled to dominate, control and rule their supposed ‘promised land’ at the expense of its indigenous population i.e. the Palestinians. But is this only true of Zionism? Is not any Jewish ‘progressive’ discourse, driven by tribal and racial inclinations towards segregation and determined to enforce on others how their struggle must be conducted, is not this also fundamentally supremacist?
My point is actually very simple and, also it seems, devastating. I believe that every single Jewish political discourse is chauvinist to the bone and is either already supremacist or on the verge of becoming supremacist.
But what about Kevin MacDonald? Is he a White Supremacist? Well, now I‘m not so sure. He’s certainly concerned with his white heritage and, like many Jews, he is also concerned with his genetic pool. MacDonald’s world view is clearly shaped by biological determinism and this is something I am very uncomfortable with. Yet, does he insist upon privilege? Does he seek to ‘dominate’, ‘control’ or ‘rule’ other non-white people? I’m not so sure, but I’m certainly going to look into it and it may take some time. But I will come with an answer.
Projection
I also asked myself, why did I label MacDonald as a White Supremacist without really elaborating on the topic or explaining myself? My answer is slightly embarrassing. For quite a while, I’ve seen the ‘White Supremacist’ tag attached to MacDonald and to so many other people, and at some point I must have let my guard down and allowed this highly charged terminology to infiltrate my vocabulary. I didn’t even notice the glaring fact that those who have bombarded us with this inflammatory label are themselves the ultimate supremacists – ADL, Zionists and even some Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists.
It’s now clear to me why Jewish ethnic leaders toss around the ‘White Supremacist’ label. It is there to divert attention from the true depth of their own Jewish Supremacism, an ideological tendency deeply embedded in every form of Jewish identity politics. For every Jewish political collective is a ‘Jews only’ exclusive club concerned primarily with Jewish particular interests.
It is more than likely that what we have here is a clear case of projection.
Projection is basically a psychological defense mechanism whereby one ‘projects’ one’s own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else. It seems likely that many amongst those who attribute supremacism to others are themselves supremacists. I will obviously have to look into my own psyche and find out why, on this occasion, I tossed around the supremacist tag. I guess that my escape from Jewishness is not yet complete and from time to time I follow my tribal instinct. In retrospect, this is, indeed, a matter for regret...MORE...LINK
-----------------------
Chris Moore comments:
It's no secret that organized Jewry hates Gentiles per its racist ethno-religious doctrine, and acts like it. This is the primary reason Jewry has been historically persecuted, despite its self-serving "victim" narratives that Jewry's own behavior has nothing to do with its persecution.
How many obnoxious, hateful individuals that go around spitting on and exploiting people and then consequently get regularly beat up can be described as "persecuted"?
Same story with organized Jewry.
True, there's a difference between individual Jews and organized Jewry, yet Zionists insist on conflating the two, and pretend to be unaware that Jewish doctrine is innately racist.
Most people have no problem with individual Jews who aren't part of the Zionist racket and its racist doctrine that comprises organized Jewry (which might be defined as either a loose or cohesive grouping of Jews working openly or in secret to advance, implement and impose their authority and/or Jewish supremacist agenda upon non-Jews, and/or steal from non-Jews by means of conspiracy, bullying, corruption, or outright theft).
Were the famous Protocols of the Elders of Zion that describe elements of the Judeofascist method and agenda written or inspired by Jewry, by renegade Jews, or merely by someone intimately familiar with Jewry's attitudes and modus-operandi as a means of "outing" the Judeofascist core for all the world to see?
Either way, we now know Hitler and Nazism mirrored the Protocols to some extent in their war against communism/Jewish Bolshevism, but it must be remembered that Jewry started the paradigm in the first place millenia ago, and has been practicing it ever since, with the Jewish Bolsheviks merely being a 20th century version of the ancient Jewish supremacist thesis to which the Nazis became the antithesis.
Live by the racist sword, die by the racist sword...that's the REAL story of organized Jewry, and always has been.
When Judeofascists don't have enough enemies, they systematically create more...and then profess bewilderment and victimhood at world's contempt
From:
The More Enemies, the More Honor
(AntiWar.com) -- by Uri Avnery --
An old photo from World War I shows a company of German soldiers getting on the train on their way to the front. On the wall of the car somebody had scribbled “viel Feind, viel Ehr” (“The more enemies, the more honor.”)
In those days, at the very start of what was to be the First World War, country after country was declaring war on Germany. The spirit of the graffito reflected the hubris of the supreme commander, Kaiser Wilhelm, who relied on the war plan of the legendary German general staff. It was indeed an excellent war plan, and as excellent war plans are apt to do, it started going awry right from the beginning.
The foolish kaiser now has the heirs he deserves. Israel’s deputy prime minister, Moshe Ya’alon, a former army chief of staff whose intelligence is below the average even of that rank, has announced that Israel could not possibly apologize to Turkey, even though its national interests may demand it, because it would hurt our “prestige.”
Many enemies, much prestige.
It seems that we shall soon run out of friends whom we can turn into enemies to gather even more prestige.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week a black cat came between Israel and its second best friend: Germany.
High-ranking German officials confided to their Israeli colleagues that their Kanzlerin, Angela Merkel, was “furious” when she heard that the Israeli government had approved the building of 1,100 housing units in Gilo, a neighborhood in occupied East Jerusalem. Just a few days earlier, the Quartet had invited Israel and the Palestinian Authority to restart negotiations and abstain from “provocations.” If this is not a provocation, what is?
Merkel, generally a woman of placid equanimity, did not keep her rage to herself. She called Benjamin Netanyahu and gave him a severe dressing-down, something that had never happened before.
Until now, Germany has kept to a strict code of behavior toward Israel: After the unspeakable crimes committed by the Nazis against the Jews, there could be no criticism of any Israeli act. Germany would pay for a crucial component of Israel’s armaments. Germany would suspend all moral criteria as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was concerned.
Not any more, it seems. We may be losing our only second-best friend...MORE...LINK
The More Enemies, the More Honor
(AntiWar.com) -- by Uri Avnery --
An old photo from World War I shows a company of German soldiers getting on the train on their way to the front. On the wall of the car somebody had scribbled “viel Feind, viel Ehr” (“The more enemies, the more honor.”)
In those days, at the very start of what was to be the First World War, country after country was declaring war on Germany. The spirit of the graffito reflected the hubris of the supreme commander, Kaiser Wilhelm, who relied on the war plan of the legendary German general staff. It was indeed an excellent war plan, and as excellent war plans are apt to do, it started going awry right from the beginning.
The foolish kaiser now has the heirs he deserves. Israel’s deputy prime minister, Moshe Ya’alon, a former army chief of staff whose intelligence is below the average even of that rank, has announced that Israel could not possibly apologize to Turkey, even though its national interests may demand it, because it would hurt our “prestige.”
Many enemies, much prestige.
It seems that we shall soon run out of friends whom we can turn into enemies to gather even more prestige.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week a black cat came between Israel and its second best friend: Germany.
High-ranking German officials confided to their Israeli colleagues that their Kanzlerin, Angela Merkel, was “furious” when she heard that the Israeli government had approved the building of 1,100 housing units in Gilo, a neighborhood in occupied East Jerusalem. Just a few days earlier, the Quartet had invited Israel and the Palestinian Authority to restart negotiations and abstain from “provocations.” If this is not a provocation, what is?
Merkel, generally a woman of placid equanimity, did not keep her rage to herself. She called Benjamin Netanyahu and gave him a severe dressing-down, something that had never happened before.
Until now, Germany has kept to a strict code of behavior toward Israel: After the unspeakable crimes committed by the Nazis against the Jews, there could be no criticism of any Israeli act. Germany would pay for a crucial component of Israel’s armaments. Germany would suspend all moral criteria as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was concerned.
Not any more, it seems. We may be losing our only second-best friend...MORE...LINK
Monday, October 10, 2011
Both right-wing and left-wing political Jewry is Zionist
(By Chris Moore) -- It’s always a mistake to allow Jewry or its lackeys to compartmentalize political Jewry, as if there is somehow a serious conflict between its various strains, or allow them to even attempt to distinguish the Jewish Left from the Jewish Right in any meaningful way.
For example, liberals like to say “Judaism isn’t the problem; right-wing Jews (or Zionists) are the problem." I think most intelligent people have concluded political Jewry, whether right-wing or left-wing, is all about organized Jewish supremacism, with Zionism simply being more honest and blatant about it than Marxism.
Compartmentalization provides an excuse for Jews who claim not to be Zionists or to be agnostic on Zionism and atheistic in orientation to pursue crypto-Jewish supremacism from the Left, including via cultural Marxism.
Once one recognizes that the ethno-religious-ideology of Judaism has ethno-religious-ideological imperatives to rule the world one way or the other, it becomes clear why their various right-wing and left-wing strains both always end with authoritarianism, totalitarianism, mass murder, and attempted enslavement.
This is one reason why I appreciate former Jewish Zionist, contemporary "anti-Jewishness" author and musician Gilad Atzmon’s attack on what he explicitly calls “the Jewish Left” as the crypto Zionist (Jewish supremacist) enterprise that it is.
Both right-wing Jewish supremacists and left-wing crypto Jewish supremacists have attracted staunch non-Jewish support from their respective sides, with even "anti-Zionist" left-wingers lining up behind the crypto-Jewish supremacist intellectual gurus that lead their movement because they have been subtly conditioned to believe in Jewish supremacy either consciously or sub-consciously, and hence refuse to realize what political Jewry's true ultimate agenda is, and that all Jewish supremacist-engineered political, religious and intellectual movements ultimately end at the same place.
Hence, the way Zionism has evolved, it’s obviously become an entire intellectual movement unto itself having less to do with the Levant and more to do with the proposition of Jewish supremacism, more blatant (i.e. right-wing Judeo-Christian Zionists who believes Jews are God’s religiously superior “chosen” line) or more subtle (i.e. Marxists and their Fabian socialist, left-liberal and progressive liberal offshoots who have come to believe that Jews and their intellectual movements are morally and intellectually superior, possibly as a consequence of natural selection factors).
This is why I refer to the Jewish intellectual core and its enterprise (whether left-wing or right-wing) as Judeofascist...because despite its various masks, red herrings and claims to being humanitarian or mainstream, its true agenda is Jewish supremacist fascism. (Indeed, Hitler is alleged by one time Nazi Hermann Rauschning to have modeled his own fascism on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which may or may not have been written by Jews, but which was clearly fashioned by parties well aware of the Jewish supremacist agenda and its technique.)
In this analysis, the Judeofascists (whether right-wing and explicitly religious or left-wing and avowedly "secular") are the "temple priests," and Zionism (crypto or blatant) is the larger intellectual movement and ideology that is propelling the totalitarian, Jewish supremacist agenda towards fulfillment.
Left-wing, anti-Zionist, self-identifying Jews believe they "prove" that they are not Jewish supremacists by feigning opposition to the technical definition of Zionism (Jewish nationalism) consistent with international Marxism's professed opposition to all nationalism. But the historical fact remains that leftism and Marxism led Jewry inexorably to the reconquest of the Levant by organized Jewry, and even if the Levantine Jews of Israel were "driven into the sea" tomorrow, would no doubt eventually lead to the same place once again, as perhaps Marx and his Jewish Zionist guru Moses Hess always intended.
For example, liberals like to say “Judaism isn’t the problem; right-wing Jews (or Zionists) are the problem." I think most intelligent people have concluded political Jewry, whether right-wing or left-wing, is all about organized Jewish supremacism, with Zionism simply being more honest and blatant about it than Marxism.
Compartmentalization provides an excuse for Jews who claim not to be Zionists or to be agnostic on Zionism and atheistic in orientation to pursue crypto-Jewish supremacism from the Left, including via cultural Marxism.
Once one recognizes that the ethno-religious-ideology of Judaism has ethno-religious-ideological imperatives to rule the world one way or the other, it becomes clear why their various right-wing and left-wing strains both always end with authoritarianism, totalitarianism, mass murder, and attempted enslavement.
This is one reason why I appreciate former Jewish Zionist, contemporary "anti-Jewishness" author and musician Gilad Atzmon’s attack on what he explicitly calls “the Jewish Left” as the crypto Zionist (Jewish supremacist) enterprise that it is.
Both right-wing Jewish supremacists and left-wing crypto Jewish supremacists have attracted staunch non-Jewish support from their respective sides, with even "anti-Zionist" left-wingers lining up behind the crypto-Jewish supremacist intellectual gurus that lead their movement because they have been subtly conditioned to believe in Jewish supremacy either consciously or sub-consciously, and hence refuse to realize what political Jewry's true ultimate agenda is, and that all Jewish supremacist-engineered political, religious and intellectual movements ultimately end at the same place.
Hence, the way Zionism has evolved, it’s obviously become an entire intellectual movement unto itself having less to do with the Levant and more to do with the proposition of Jewish supremacism, more blatant (i.e. right-wing Judeo-Christian Zionists who believes Jews are God’s religiously superior “chosen” line) or more subtle (i.e. Marxists and their Fabian socialist, left-liberal and progressive liberal offshoots who have come to believe that Jews and their intellectual movements are morally and intellectually superior, possibly as a consequence of natural selection factors).
This is why I refer to the Jewish intellectual core and its enterprise (whether left-wing or right-wing) as Judeofascist...because despite its various masks, red herrings and claims to being humanitarian or mainstream, its true agenda is Jewish supremacist fascism. (Indeed, Hitler is alleged by one time Nazi Hermann Rauschning to have modeled his own fascism on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which may or may not have been written by Jews, but which was clearly fashioned by parties well aware of the Jewish supremacist agenda and its technique.)
In this analysis, the Judeofascists (whether right-wing and explicitly religious or left-wing and avowedly "secular") are the "temple priests," and Zionism (crypto or blatant) is the larger intellectual movement and ideology that is propelling the totalitarian, Jewish supremacist agenda towards fulfillment.
Left-wing, anti-Zionist, self-identifying Jews believe they "prove" that they are not Jewish supremacists by feigning opposition to the technical definition of Zionism (Jewish nationalism) consistent with international Marxism's professed opposition to all nationalism. But the historical fact remains that leftism and Marxism led Jewry inexorably to the reconquest of the Levant by organized Jewry, and even if the Levantine Jews of Israel were "driven into the sea" tomorrow, would no doubt eventually lead to the same place once again, as perhaps Marx and his Jewish Zionist guru Moses Hess always intended.
Obama sabotaged Palestinian statehood at U.N., further angering 1.5 billion Muslims, in exchange for campaign cash from wealthy Jewish Americans
From:
Obama at the General Assembly: Sacrificing Palestine for Zionist Campaign Funds
(The James Petras Website) -- by James Petras --
The White House’s blatant parroting of Israel’s position to continue bilateral negotiations, while Tel Aviv continued to colonize Palestinian land and forcibly evict its residents, alienated the 1.5 billion Muslims throughout the world. Obama’s refusal to even mention the return to the 1967 borders as a basis for a “peace settlement”, totally undermined any pretext that the US could act as an “honest broker” in Mid-East peace negotiations, even in the eyes of its most slavish supporters in the PLO. His one-sided reference to Israel’s minimal casualties in maintaining the Occupation, while omitting any mention of the 12,000 Palestinian political prisoners, thousands of assassinations, everyday humiliation, routine torture of suspects and frequent defacement of Palestinian religious centers (mosques and churches, cemeteries and shrines), undermined any US effort to win favor among the millions of people involved in the pro-democracy social movements sweeping the Arab world from Tunisia, Egypt to the Gulf states.
Washington’s insistence that its NATO allies line-up with it in supporting continued “bilateral” negotiations, has led to the German government’s public humiliation when it followed Obama’s line of pressuring Abbas back to ‘negotiations’ only to have the Israeli Prime MInister Netanyahu announce the construction of 1,100 illegal Jews-only housing units in occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem.
Obama’s blatant and overt pandering to Israel before the representative of 193 independent nations, which had followed the standing ovation for Abbas’ call for Palestinian recognition, highlights one of the greatest US diplomatic defeats since the founding of the UN over 60 years ago.
But was Obama’s groveling before Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu really a ‘failure’ in the eyes of the White House? Or was his speech really a carefully crafted appeal to a domestic audience in order to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from pro-Israel billionaires to finance his re-election campaign?
There is a wealth of documentary evidence showing that Obama deliberately and forcefully sacrificed US international standing, in order to satisfy the major American Jewish organizations who were demanding nothing less than total and unconditional backing for Netanyahu’s phony position of “peace negotiations” and colonization from Obama.
From the angle of satisfying the US Zionist power configuration (ZPC) and securing a massive flow of re-election financing, Obama’s UN speech was a smashing success.
Obama’s Rejection of World Opinion and the Zionist Payoff
Obama’s re-election campaign from April to the end of September has received tens of millions of dollars from wealthy pro-Israeli Jewish fund raisers and contributors, as well as endorsements from rightwing US Jewish and Israeli politicians.
In the run-up to Obama’s UN speech, Zionist lobbyists adopted “good cop bad cop” tactics. Liberal Zionist Democratic Party advisers emphasized that he was “losing the Jewish vote and funding”, highlighting the recent resignation of a disgraced Democratic Congressman from a district of Orthodox Jews because of his internet porno-exhibitionism as a sign of Obama’s growing unpopularity among Jews. Some campaign strategists emphasized the “crucial Jewish vote in swing states” like Ohio and Pennsylvania (where non-Jews, who represent well over 80% of the voters, are not “crucial” in the eyes of these election experts!).
The 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations took turns accusing Obama of “slandering Israel”, for disobeying Netanyahu and “backing the Arabs” for protesting Israeli land grabs, even as Obama raised US government aid to Israel to an un-paralleled $3 billion per annum, in the midst of a US economic recession with 18% of American workers unemployed or underemployed. Obana’s pro-Israel critics overlooked his $205 million gift to Tel Aviv to build the Iron Dome rocket defense system together with the US military’s latest fighter jets. The Zionist power configuration demanded total surrender even as they extracted more political and economic concessions. They ignored the enormous military imbalances in the Middle East in Israel’s favor and the degradation of US standing in the region.
Hardball threats to end Jewish financial support by the rightwing Zionists was “complemented” by fund raising by liberal Zionists and promises of more to come if Obama ended his “public feuding” with Israel and vetoed Palestinian admission to the UN. Obama performed his well-rehearsed shuffle and song routine of the “absolute defender”, now and forever, of every Israeli violation of Palestinian human rights.
Obama’s Rush for the Gold
On June 20, 2011, months prior to Obama’s speech opposing Palestinian admission to the UN, a pro-Israel Washington fund raising event for his re-election campaign raised over $1.5 million, assuring Obama that “Jewish donors” were not wavering, as long as he followed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s line of peace negotiations and land grabs (Forward, June 29 2011). During the fund raiser Obama reiterated his unconditional support for Israel’s policies, including the settlements in the Palestinian West Bank. Following the dinner he met behind closed doors to elaborate on how far he was willing to go in opposing the Palestinian initiative at the UN, (Forward, June 29, 2011). A month earlier on May 22, 2011, Obama spoke at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), directly appealing for funds in exchange for the United States’ total submission to the AIPAC agenda.
Obama’s dependence on Zionist funding was evident between April to June 2011: Of the $68 million raised for his campaign, $37 million was raised by 244 “big cash bundlers” – individuals who round up multi-millionaire contributors. According to one count of the 244 bundlers approximately 120 were identified as pro-Israel Jews. Among the Zionist “bundlers” are Penny Pritzker bagging contributions between $100,000 - $200,000, Jeffrey Katzenberg putting the touch on contributors for $500,000 plus; Mark Gilbert $500,000 plus, and Mark Stanley $100,000 to $200,000.
Obama’s fund raising and organizational success among Israeli right wingers and US Zionists multiplied following his UN speech opposing the recognition of Palestine. As the New York Times (September 30, 2011) noted “. . . Democratic officials maintain that they do not think that Mr. Obama is in danger of losing the Jewish vote – particularly given the President’s muscular defense of Israel at the United Nations General Assembly last week”.
Following his UN speech Obama raised several million from wealthy Zionists in Manhattan and Hollywood at dinners ranging up to $35,800 a plate. The extremist right wing Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman (influential among billionaire US Zionists), signaled his enthusiastic support for Obama, as did Abe Foxman, the notorious Israeli Firster and head of the Anti-Defamation League, and former-New York City Mayor Ed Koch, another fanatical-Zionist (NY Times, Sept. 30, 2011). Thanks to pro-Israel bundlers and hustlers, Obama had out-fund raised the leading Republican candidate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, by more than a 4 to 1 margin by September 2011, (Reuters, Sept. 27, 2011)...MORE...LINK
Obama at the General Assembly: Sacrificing Palestine for Zionist Campaign Funds
(The James Petras Website) -- by James Petras --
The White House’s blatant parroting of Israel’s position to continue bilateral negotiations, while Tel Aviv continued to colonize Palestinian land and forcibly evict its residents, alienated the 1.5 billion Muslims throughout the world. Obama’s refusal to even mention the return to the 1967 borders as a basis for a “peace settlement”, totally undermined any pretext that the US could act as an “honest broker” in Mid-East peace negotiations, even in the eyes of its most slavish supporters in the PLO. His one-sided reference to Israel’s minimal casualties in maintaining the Occupation, while omitting any mention of the 12,000 Palestinian political prisoners, thousands of assassinations, everyday humiliation, routine torture of suspects and frequent defacement of Palestinian religious centers (mosques and churches, cemeteries and shrines), undermined any US effort to win favor among the millions of people involved in the pro-democracy social movements sweeping the Arab world from Tunisia, Egypt to the Gulf states.
Washington’s insistence that its NATO allies line-up with it in supporting continued “bilateral” negotiations, has led to the German government’s public humiliation when it followed Obama’s line of pressuring Abbas back to ‘negotiations’ only to have the Israeli Prime MInister Netanyahu announce the construction of 1,100 illegal Jews-only housing units in occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem.
Obama’s blatant and overt pandering to Israel before the representative of 193 independent nations, which had followed the standing ovation for Abbas’ call for Palestinian recognition, highlights one of the greatest US diplomatic defeats since the founding of the UN over 60 years ago.
But was Obama’s groveling before Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu really a ‘failure’ in the eyes of the White House? Or was his speech really a carefully crafted appeal to a domestic audience in order to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from pro-Israel billionaires to finance his re-election campaign?
There is a wealth of documentary evidence showing that Obama deliberately and forcefully sacrificed US international standing, in order to satisfy the major American Jewish organizations who were demanding nothing less than total and unconditional backing for Netanyahu’s phony position of “peace negotiations” and colonization from Obama.
From the angle of satisfying the US Zionist power configuration (ZPC) and securing a massive flow of re-election financing, Obama’s UN speech was a smashing success.
Obama’s Rejection of World Opinion and the Zionist Payoff
Obama’s re-election campaign from April to the end of September has received tens of millions of dollars from wealthy pro-Israeli Jewish fund raisers and contributors, as well as endorsements from rightwing US Jewish and Israeli politicians.
In the run-up to Obama’s UN speech, Zionist lobbyists adopted “good cop bad cop” tactics. Liberal Zionist Democratic Party advisers emphasized that he was “losing the Jewish vote and funding”, highlighting the recent resignation of a disgraced Democratic Congressman from a district of Orthodox Jews because of his internet porno-exhibitionism as a sign of Obama’s growing unpopularity among Jews. Some campaign strategists emphasized the “crucial Jewish vote in swing states” like Ohio and Pennsylvania (where non-Jews, who represent well over 80% of the voters, are not “crucial” in the eyes of these election experts!).
The 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations took turns accusing Obama of “slandering Israel”, for disobeying Netanyahu and “backing the Arabs” for protesting Israeli land grabs, even as Obama raised US government aid to Israel to an un-paralleled $3 billion per annum, in the midst of a US economic recession with 18% of American workers unemployed or underemployed. Obana’s pro-Israel critics overlooked his $205 million gift to Tel Aviv to build the Iron Dome rocket defense system together with the US military’s latest fighter jets. The Zionist power configuration demanded total surrender even as they extracted more political and economic concessions. They ignored the enormous military imbalances in the Middle East in Israel’s favor and the degradation of US standing in the region.
Hardball threats to end Jewish financial support by the rightwing Zionists was “complemented” by fund raising by liberal Zionists and promises of more to come if Obama ended his “public feuding” with Israel and vetoed Palestinian admission to the UN. Obama performed his well-rehearsed shuffle and song routine of the “absolute defender”, now and forever, of every Israeli violation of Palestinian human rights.
Obama’s Rush for the Gold
On June 20, 2011, months prior to Obama’s speech opposing Palestinian admission to the UN, a pro-Israel Washington fund raising event for his re-election campaign raised over $1.5 million, assuring Obama that “Jewish donors” were not wavering, as long as he followed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s line of peace negotiations and land grabs (Forward, June 29 2011). During the fund raiser Obama reiterated his unconditional support for Israel’s policies, including the settlements in the Palestinian West Bank. Following the dinner he met behind closed doors to elaborate on how far he was willing to go in opposing the Palestinian initiative at the UN, (Forward, June 29, 2011). A month earlier on May 22, 2011, Obama spoke at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), directly appealing for funds in exchange for the United States’ total submission to the AIPAC agenda.
Obama’s dependence on Zionist funding was evident between April to June 2011: Of the $68 million raised for his campaign, $37 million was raised by 244 “big cash bundlers” – individuals who round up multi-millionaire contributors. According to one count of the 244 bundlers approximately 120 were identified as pro-Israel Jews. Among the Zionist “bundlers” are Penny Pritzker bagging contributions between $100,000 - $200,000, Jeffrey Katzenberg putting the touch on contributors for $500,000 plus; Mark Gilbert $500,000 plus, and Mark Stanley $100,000 to $200,000.
Obama’s fund raising and organizational success among Israeli right wingers and US Zionists multiplied following his UN speech opposing the recognition of Palestine. As the New York Times (September 30, 2011) noted “. . . Democratic officials maintain that they do not think that Mr. Obama is in danger of losing the Jewish vote – particularly given the President’s muscular defense of Israel at the United Nations General Assembly last week”.
Following his UN speech Obama raised several million from wealthy Zionists in Manhattan and Hollywood at dinners ranging up to $35,800 a plate. The extremist right wing Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman (influential among billionaire US Zionists), signaled his enthusiastic support for Obama, as did Abe Foxman, the notorious Israeli Firster and head of the Anti-Defamation League, and former-New York City Mayor Ed Koch, another fanatical-Zionist (NY Times, Sept. 30, 2011). Thanks to pro-Israel bundlers and hustlers, Obama had out-fund raised the leading Republican candidate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, by more than a 4 to 1 margin by September 2011, (Reuters, Sept. 27, 2011)...MORE...LINK
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Oily Jew Bloomberg says Wall St. protesters, not greedy, plutocrat billionaires like himself, threaten jobs of average workers
From:
Mayor Bloomberg slanders Wall Street protest
(WSWS.org) -- by Bill Van Auken --
New York City’s billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, renewed his attack on the three-week-old Wall Street protest Friday, claiming that it is aimed at destroying the jobs of New Yorkers.
“What they’re trying to do is take the jobs away from people working in this city,” Bloomberg said in his weekly appearance on WOR radio. “They’re trying to take away the tax base we have. None of this is good for tourism.”
He added: “And if you focus for example on driving the banks out of New York City, you know those are our jobs ... You can’t have it both ways: If you want jobs you have to assist companies and give them confidence to go and hire people."
Bloomberg, who has accrued a personal fortune of close to $20 billion off of his connections with Wall Street, has repeatedly attempted to deflect the issues raised by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators, of social inequality and the vast accumulation of wealth by the top 1 percent, by claiming that their target is not billionaires like himself, but the lowest paid clerical, administrative and support staff in the financial industry.
As for the tax base, the billionaire mayor forcefully opposed an extension of the so-called “millionaires’ tax,” depriving the state and the city of billions of dollars in revenues by effectively cutting the tax rate for the rich. His administration has also implemented numerous tax giveaways for the financial sector.
The mayor’s remarks came amid indications that preparations are being made to force the demonstrators out of their encampment at Zuccotti Park.
The corporate owner of the park, Brookfield Office Properties, issued a statement declaring that sanitation in the park is a “growing concern.” It added: “Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every weeknight … because the protesters refuse to cooperate … the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels.”
To eject the demonstrators, Brookfield would have to declare them trespassers and ask the city to force them out. The company’s ties to the Bloomberg administration are extremely close. The mayor’s domestic partner, Diana Taylor, a managing director at Wolfensohn Fund Management, sits on Brookfield’s board of directors.
New York’s Police Commissioner Ray Kelly Friday defended the latest round of arrests and police brutality that occurred Wednesday night toward the end of a mass march that saw between 15,000 and 20,000 people pour through the streets of lower Manhattan.
Kelly claimed that the protesters had “attacked the police” when they tried to pass through barricades that blocked them from demonstrating on Wall Street.
“They’re going to be met with force when they do that. This is just common sense,” Kelly said.
In reality, cops responded with excessive force, pepper-spraying demonstrators and hitting them with police truncheons. Mounted cops were also brought in to intimidate the protesters.
Attorneys representing the protesters are suing over the more than 700 arrests that were made last Saturday when police trapped demonstrators after leading them onto the Brooklyn Bridge. Protesters have charged that they were deliberately lured onto the bridge to provide a pretext for a mass arrest aimed at quelling the movement. The suit seeks to bar the NYPD from employing similar methods in the future and to have the arrests expunged as well unspecified damages from the City...MORE...LINK
Mayor Bloomberg slanders Wall Street protest
(WSWS.org) -- by Bill Van Auken --
New York City’s billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, renewed his attack on the three-week-old Wall Street protest Friday, claiming that it is aimed at destroying the jobs of New Yorkers.
“What they’re trying to do is take the jobs away from people working in this city,” Bloomberg said in his weekly appearance on WOR radio. “They’re trying to take away the tax base we have. None of this is good for tourism.”
He added: “And if you focus for example on driving the banks out of New York City, you know those are our jobs ... You can’t have it both ways: If you want jobs you have to assist companies and give them confidence to go and hire people."
Bloomberg, who has accrued a personal fortune of close to $20 billion off of his connections with Wall Street, has repeatedly attempted to deflect the issues raised by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators, of social inequality and the vast accumulation of wealth by the top 1 percent, by claiming that their target is not billionaires like himself, but the lowest paid clerical, administrative and support staff in the financial industry.
As for the tax base, the billionaire mayor forcefully opposed an extension of the so-called “millionaires’ tax,” depriving the state and the city of billions of dollars in revenues by effectively cutting the tax rate for the rich. His administration has also implemented numerous tax giveaways for the financial sector.
The mayor’s remarks came amid indications that preparations are being made to force the demonstrators out of their encampment at Zuccotti Park.
The corporate owner of the park, Brookfield Office Properties, issued a statement declaring that sanitation in the park is a “growing concern.” It added: “Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every weeknight … because the protesters refuse to cooperate … the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels.”
To eject the demonstrators, Brookfield would have to declare them trespassers and ask the city to force them out. The company’s ties to the Bloomberg administration are extremely close. The mayor’s domestic partner, Diana Taylor, a managing director at Wolfensohn Fund Management, sits on Brookfield’s board of directors.
New York’s Police Commissioner Ray Kelly Friday defended the latest round of arrests and police brutality that occurred Wednesday night toward the end of a mass march that saw between 15,000 and 20,000 people pour through the streets of lower Manhattan.
Kelly claimed that the protesters had “attacked the police” when they tried to pass through barricades that blocked them from demonstrating on Wall Street.
“They’re going to be met with force when they do that. This is just common sense,” Kelly said.
In reality, cops responded with excessive force, pepper-spraying demonstrators and hitting them with police truncheons. Mounted cops were also brought in to intimidate the protesters.
Attorneys representing the protesters are suing over the more than 700 arrests that were made last Saturday when police trapped demonstrators after leading them onto the Brooklyn Bridge. Protesters have charged that they were deliberately lured onto the bridge to provide a pretext for a mass arrest aimed at quelling the movement. The suit seeks to bar the NYPD from employing similar methods in the future and to have the arrests expunged as well unspecified damages from the City...MORE...LINK
Friday, October 07, 2011
Report: French President dismisses Zionist demands for officially Jewish state as "silly," says Natanyahu is untrustworthy
From:
Sarkozy: It is silly to talk about a Jewish state
French leader quoted as saying 'Abbas is a statesman. Netanyahu, on the other hand, never fails to disappoint us'
(ynet) -- by Lior Zilberstein --
PARIS РFrench President Nicolas Sarkozy has always described himself as a true friend of Israel. However, according to unusual statements attributed to him in the French magazine Le Canard Enchąne, he unequivocally sides with the Palestinians.
The paper quotes comments made by the French leader during a cabinet meeting held upon his return from last month's UN General Assembly, Yedioth Aharonoth reported.
"It is silly to talk about a Jewish state," Sarkozy said while referring to the Israeli demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state. "It would be like saying that this table is Catholic. There are two million Arabs in Israel."
Sarkozy is also quoted as saying that "the US has been asking (Mahmoud) Abbas for years to come to the negotiating table. He is willing to do it because he is a statesman. Netanyahu, on the other hand, never fails to disappoint us," Sarkozy said in what appears to be a cynical tone.
"Only now, he announced the construction of 1,100 housing units in the Arab part of Jerusalem," Sarkozy added.
According to the report, the French president told the ministers that he fully supports the establishment of a Palestinian state. "The Palestinians have been waiting for a state they deserve for 60 years now," he said. "Is it not fair that Palestine is recognized by the UN even in an observer status?"...MORE...LINK
Sarkozy: It is silly to talk about a Jewish state
French leader quoted as saying 'Abbas is a statesman. Netanyahu, on the other hand, never fails to disappoint us'
(ynet) -- by Lior Zilberstein --
PARIS РFrench President Nicolas Sarkozy has always described himself as a true friend of Israel. However, according to unusual statements attributed to him in the French magazine Le Canard Enchąne, he unequivocally sides with the Palestinians.
The paper quotes comments made by the French leader during a cabinet meeting held upon his return from last month's UN General Assembly, Yedioth Aharonoth reported.
"It is silly to talk about a Jewish state," Sarkozy said while referring to the Israeli demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state. "It would be like saying that this table is Catholic. There are two million Arabs in Israel."
Sarkozy is also quoted as saying that "the US has been asking (Mahmoud) Abbas for years to come to the negotiating table. He is willing to do it because he is a statesman. Netanyahu, on the other hand, never fails to disappoint us," Sarkozy said in what appears to be a cynical tone.
"Only now, he announced the construction of 1,100 housing units in the Arab part of Jerusalem," Sarkozy added.
According to the report, the French president told the ministers that he fully supports the establishment of a Palestinian state. "The Palestinians have been waiting for a state they deserve for 60 years now," he said. "Is it not fair that Palestine is recognized by the UN even in an observer status?"...MORE...LINK
Government demands that Israel be recognized as an official "Jewish state" unmask fascist character of modern Zionism
From:
Why Israel can't be a 'Jewish State'
The Israeli demand to be recognised as a "Jewish state" by the Palestinians is an inherently problematic concept
(Aljazeera) -- by Sari Nusseibeh --
The Israeli government's current mantra is that the Palestinians must recognise a "Jewish State". Of course, the Palestinians have clearly and repeatedly recognised the State of Israel as such in the 1993 Oslo Accords (which were based on an Israeli promise to establish a Palestinian state within five years - a promise now shattered) and many times since. Recently, however, Israeli leaders have dramatically and unilaterally moved the goal-posts and are now clamouring that Palestinians must recognise Israel as a "Jewish State".
In 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry concluded that the demand for a "Jewish State" was not part of the obligations of the Balfour Declaration or the British Mandate. Even in the First Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, when Zionists sought to "establish a home for the Jewish people", there was no reference of a "Jewish State". The Zionist Organisation preferred at first to use the description "Jewish homeland" or "Jewish Commonwealth". Many pioneering Zionist leaders, such as Judah Magnes and Martin Buber also avoided the clear and explicit term "Jewish State" for their project of a homeland for Jews, and preferred instead the concept of a democratic bi-national state.
Today, however, demands for a "Jewish State" from Israeli politicians are growing without giving thought to what this might mean, and its supporters claim that it would be as natural as calling France a French State. However, if we consider the subject dispassionately, the idea of a "Jewish State" is logically and morally problematic because of its legal, religious, historical and social implications. The implications of this term therefore need to be spelled out, and we are sure that once they are, most people - and most Israeli citizens, we trust - will not accept these implications.
Many implications
First, let us say that confusion immediately arises here because the term "Jewish" can be applied both to the ancient race of Israelites and their descendants, as well as to those who believe in and practice the religion of Judaism. These generally overlap, but not always. For example, some ethnic Jews are atheists and there are converts to Judaism (leaving aside the question of whether these are accepted as such by Ultra-Orthodox Jews) who are not ethnic Jews.
Second, let us suggest also that having a modern nation-state being defined by one ethnicity or one religion is problematic in itself - if not inherently self-contradictory - because the modern nation-state as such is a temporal and civic institution, and because no state in the world is - or can be in practice - ethnically or religiously homogenous.
Third, recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" implies that Israel is, or should be, either a theocracy (if we take the word "Jewish" to apply to the religion of Judaism) or an apartheid state (if we take the word "Jewish" to apply to the ethnicity of Jews), or both, and in all of these cases, Israel is then no longer a democracy - something which has rightly been the pride of most Israelis since the country's founding in 1948.
Fourth, at least one in five Israelis - 20 per cent of the population, according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics - is ethnically Arab (and are mostly either Muslim, Christian, Druze or Bahai), and recognising Israel as a "Jewish State" as such makes one-fifth of the population of Israel automatically strangers in their own native land and opens the door to legally reducing them, most undemocratically, to second-class citizens (or perhaps even stripping them of their citizenship and other rights) - something that no-one, much less a Palestinian leader, has a right to do.
Fifth, recognising a "Jewish State" as such in Israel would mean legally that while Palestinians no longer have citizens' rights there, any member of world Jewry outside of Israel (up to 10 million people perhaps), should be entitled to full citizens' rights there, no matter wherever they may be in the world today and regardless of their current nationality. Indeed, Israel publicly admits that it does not hold the land for the benefit of its citizens but holds it, in trust, on behalf of the Jews of the world for all time. This is something that happens in practice, but that obviously Palestinians in the occupied territories - including Jerusalem - do not see as fair, especially as they are constantly forcibly evicted off their ancestral homeland by Israel to make way for foreign Jewish settlers, and because Palestinians in their diaspora are denied the same right to come and live.
Sixth, it means, before final status negotiations have even started, that Palestinians would have then given up the rights of about 7 million Palestinians in the diaspora to repatriation or compensation; 7 million Palestinians descended from the Palestinians who in 1900 lived in historical Palestine (ie what is now Israel, the West Bank including Jerusalem, and Gaza) and at that time made up 800,000 of its 840,000 inhabitants; and who were driven off their land through war, violent eviction or fear...MORE...LINK
Why Israel can't be a 'Jewish State'
The Israeli demand to be recognised as a "Jewish state" by the Palestinians is an inherently problematic concept
(Aljazeera) -- by Sari Nusseibeh --
The Israeli government's current mantra is that the Palestinians must recognise a "Jewish State". Of course, the Palestinians have clearly and repeatedly recognised the State of Israel as such in the 1993 Oslo Accords (which were based on an Israeli promise to establish a Palestinian state within five years - a promise now shattered) and many times since. Recently, however, Israeli leaders have dramatically and unilaterally moved the goal-posts and are now clamouring that Palestinians must recognise Israel as a "Jewish State".
In 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry concluded that the demand for a "Jewish State" was not part of the obligations of the Balfour Declaration or the British Mandate. Even in the First Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, when Zionists sought to "establish a home for the Jewish people", there was no reference of a "Jewish State". The Zionist Organisation preferred at first to use the description "Jewish homeland" or "Jewish Commonwealth". Many pioneering Zionist leaders, such as Judah Magnes and Martin Buber also avoided the clear and explicit term "Jewish State" for their project of a homeland for Jews, and preferred instead the concept of a democratic bi-national state.
Today, however, demands for a "Jewish State" from Israeli politicians are growing without giving thought to what this might mean, and its supporters claim that it would be as natural as calling France a French State. However, if we consider the subject dispassionately, the idea of a "Jewish State" is logically and morally problematic because of its legal, religious, historical and social implications. The implications of this term therefore need to be spelled out, and we are sure that once they are, most people - and most Israeli citizens, we trust - will not accept these implications.
Many implications
First, let us say that confusion immediately arises here because the term "Jewish" can be applied both to the ancient race of Israelites and their descendants, as well as to those who believe in and practice the religion of Judaism. These generally overlap, but not always. For example, some ethnic Jews are atheists and there are converts to Judaism (leaving aside the question of whether these are accepted as such by Ultra-Orthodox Jews) who are not ethnic Jews.
Second, let us suggest also that having a modern nation-state being defined by one ethnicity or one religion is problematic in itself - if not inherently self-contradictory - because the modern nation-state as such is a temporal and civic institution, and because no state in the world is - or can be in practice - ethnically or religiously homogenous.
Third, recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" implies that Israel is, or should be, either a theocracy (if we take the word "Jewish" to apply to the religion of Judaism) or an apartheid state (if we take the word "Jewish" to apply to the ethnicity of Jews), or both, and in all of these cases, Israel is then no longer a democracy - something which has rightly been the pride of most Israelis since the country's founding in 1948.
Fourth, at least one in five Israelis - 20 per cent of the population, according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics - is ethnically Arab (and are mostly either Muslim, Christian, Druze or Bahai), and recognising Israel as a "Jewish State" as such makes one-fifth of the population of Israel automatically strangers in their own native land and opens the door to legally reducing them, most undemocratically, to second-class citizens (or perhaps even stripping them of their citizenship and other rights) - something that no-one, much less a Palestinian leader, has a right to do.
Fifth, recognising a "Jewish State" as such in Israel would mean legally that while Palestinians no longer have citizens' rights there, any member of world Jewry outside of Israel (up to 10 million people perhaps), should be entitled to full citizens' rights there, no matter wherever they may be in the world today and regardless of their current nationality. Indeed, Israel publicly admits that it does not hold the land for the benefit of its citizens but holds it, in trust, on behalf of the Jews of the world for all time. This is something that happens in practice, but that obviously Palestinians in the occupied territories - including Jerusalem - do not see as fair, especially as they are constantly forcibly evicted off their ancestral homeland by Israel to make way for foreign Jewish settlers, and because Palestinians in their diaspora are denied the same right to come and live.
Sixth, it means, before final status negotiations have even started, that Palestinians would have then given up the rights of about 7 million Palestinians in the diaspora to repatriation or compensation; 7 million Palestinians descended from the Palestinians who in 1900 lived in historical Palestine (ie what is now Israel, the West Bank including Jerusalem, and Gaza) and at that time made up 800,000 of its 840,000 inhabitants; and who were driven off their land through war, violent eviction or fear...MORE...LINK
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)